ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
University City Area Plan
Action: Recommend adoption of the draft University City Area Plan
Volume I: The Concept Plan with recommended changes and receive
Volume II: The Implementation Plan.
II.
Subject:
Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback Study
Action: Receive and comment on presentation/report from staff on this
topic. Raise questions for staff to address prior to making a
recommendation at a subsequent meeting.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Councilmembers John Lassiter, Andy Dulin, Don Lochman, James Mitchell and
Nancy Carter
12:00 noon – 2:10 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
PowerPoint Presentation and draft of University City Area Plan
PowerPoint Presentation on Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback Study
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I.
Subject: University City Area Plan.
John Lassiter, Chair: The Committee has already had one presentation on the University City
Plan and there has been a number of additional developments and activities. We have to get
caught up on where that is so we can be effective on step process and how it plays in with
other issues that are pending before Council.
Kathy Cornett, Planning Coordinator: (Reviewed issues that came up at the Planning
Committee public comment hearing on May 29th)
We had a few speakers at that meeting who I would basically classify their comments and
issues as mapping clarifications, areas where the legion was not clear as to whether it was a
road or the boundary of the study area and whether or not certain neighborhoods were
included in the plan boundary. I think all of those are issues which we clarified for those who
made the comments and we can further correct those things on the map and additional labels
where needed. For the City Council public comment hearing on June 25th there was a
comment about a dialogue about streets and there has been dialogue between the Planning
Department and CDOT staff as to conceptual street locations and that will continue to go on
as development occurs. There was also a comment about setting aside a specific percentage
of open space and in the development of the plan our staff has met many times with Park and
Rec to discuss parking needs in potential locations and that is another dialogue that will
continue, especially as it relates to park opportunities and the future station areas. There were
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
about four or five comments in relation to Edge Area A which we will be talking about in a
little more detail. The Planning Committee voted on June 25th to unanimously to approve the
Plan with one change to the recommended future land use in the southern portion of Edge
Area A. If you will look on the map that was an attachment in your package, that area is
essentially now labeled as Area A-1. The majority of the area is shown on that map as
recommended for retail, office and industrial uses. The strip pattern is purple, red and brown
and it is a little hard to differentiate between the other pattern which is residential office and
retail, so that is green, red and purple pattern.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Dulin:
In Edge Area A-1 on our map it has the arrow coming down out of the edge area.
The ball of that arrow is literally where IKEA is. Is that correct?
Cornett:
Yes. It just happens to be there.
Dulin:
IKEA is in the southern zone of A-1 right?
Cornett:
Yes.
Cornett:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Cornett:
Dulin:
Cornett:
Dulin:
Campbell:
The Planning Committee recommended that the land use in that specific area that
we are showing the opportunity for industrial be changed to essentially the same
strip pattern and land use combination of residential, office and retail.
In the rezoning that Council recently approved, what did we do relative to the
zoning classifications on that parcel?
To a MUDD Optional as I recall.
I’m trying to following the zoning ball and the recommendation to take that to
residential, office and retail out of the industrial zoning that is on it, but I thought
we rezoned it.
We did and I think Kathy is going to clarify that. Unfortunately that arrow is for
a larger area, not for specifically for the IKEA site. Eessentially what the
Planning Committee wants us to do is, rather than saying that industrial is an
appropriate use in that area, even though a majority of the land is zoned
industrial, they don’t feel there is an industrial market and that we should look at
that area as being a combination of residential, retail and office.
The issues that have come up since the June 26th meeting are really outlined
under recommended changes in your handout. The first being really clarifying a
100 foot buffer along the I-85 frontage area which is the entire length of the area
we have identified as Edge Area A. The language in the Plan currently reads,
“where feasible, a 100-foot buffer should be encouraged along I-85 for properties
developing along the interstate”. The recommendation is to change that to
“development along I-85 shall provide a 100-foot undisturbed buffer from the
interstate”. In addition, adding the language on Page 39 of the Plan where it
outlines the streetscape development standards.
Where does the 100-foot buffer start? There is a fence that runs along there so
does it start from the fence or the right-of-way? A 100 feet along I-85 really isn’t
much.
I would say that it would start from the edge of the right-of-way, but we can
clarify that.
It has to do with the tree savings too.
You may recall, as part of the rezoning for the IKEA Project, there was a
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Campbell:
Dulin:
Campbell:
Dulin:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Campbell:
Cornett:
Lochman:
Cornett:
Campbell:
tremendous amount of discussion about tree saves and buffers and trying to retain
some of the existing character that we currently have along I-85 where we
preserved a fairly good length, at least on this portion of I-85, a buffer of trees
and that is what we want to try to continue that buffer along the length of I-85.
Is a 100 feet about standard for this kind of thing, or did you all just make that
up?
It is generally standard.
For instance, we are working on a 100-foot down to a 60-foot out off of Highway
16 at Mountain Island Lake.
As you may recall, we actually were not supporting that particular
recommendation because it was reducing the buffer as I recall.
Highway 16 is a big street, but it is far from an I-85. What does it do if we make
it 125?
It kind of eats into the amount of developable land.
That 100-foot is a standard buffer from this zoning classification?
Not necessarily zoning classification, but generally kind of a edge for that type of
a thoroughfare and development.
We have basically held that standard.
We’ve got that throughout the City?
Yes sir.
In terms of the land recommendations for Edge Area A, I think in discussions
where one of the major property owners in this particular area, we may need to
provide a little more detail or clarification in terms of the retail square footage.
We have actually divided it into three sub-areas and are recommending that this
text would in effect replace the text listed on Page 35 of the draft plan that
describes Edge Area A now. That text is pretty general so what we’ve been
looking at is being more specific.
Why are you interested in breaking it into three areas?
Edge Area A is pretty long. It goes all the way from future City Boulevard to
past Harris Boulevard. It is a lot of acreage along I-85, the character of which
changes as you move along through the area. What we are essentially saying is
that Edge Area A-1 is more interstate related. Edge Area 2 relates more to the
transit station areas, so the scale and type of retail development or other
development in that area, the mix of it should be more pedestrian focused and
then as you move toward Edge Area 3 at I-85 and Harris Boulevard, you move
into what is now more interstate related usage, but certainly it does redevelop
more as a mixture park once type environment that would be appropriate in that
location.
We think that the further you get away from the interstate and the intersection
with City Boulevard, then the character of the development should change and
the language that we have in the existing document maybe doesn’t describe that
in detail enough, particularly as it relates to the amount of retail square footage
and the size of the actual boxes that may be permitted with the current language.
As we said, we are recommending that we have a deferral on this particular plan.
We hope to come back to you in September with most, if not all of the
outstanding issues with this major property owner addressed and resolved. I
think we can get there and we are going to work towards that expeditiously so
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________________
that we can get this Plan adopted. As you well know, this is an important piece
of work for the UCP development group as well as that part of our community.
We do want to have policies adopted that will guide future development for this
area. We hope to come back in September and hope to have most, if not all of
the issues resolved.
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Lochman:
Campbell:
Apologized for arriving late and said she missed the detail of how this will work
through in that interim. Will there be meetings with the neighborhood leaders,
will there be meetings with the District Reps? How are you going to work
through the process of achieving this consensus?
There will be meetings where the District Rep has been invited to attend as well
as future meetings where we will take the input from the District Rep and try to
work through issues with the major property owners.
So you are really not expanding this to the neighborhood involvement and are
making it the designated personality?
That is correct, similarly to how we have responded to some other issues that
were raised by other individual property owners with regards to the plan. As you
well know, we frequently have individual property owners who express concerns
about land use recommendations and we try to work with that individual property
owner without having the pressure of having to have it in a broader context. We
are trying to stick with, and be consistent with what we took out to the public
meetings with regards to this Plan. The intent and spirit of the Plan will not be
changed. What we will be working on is the clarification of the intent and the
spirit. I think that is where we have some disagreement between what we think
the Plan’s language intended and what the property owner feels like the language
has directed them to do. I feel it is important for us to clarify in the Plan what that
intent was so we don’t have the same confusion with other property owners in
that area.
Could we continue to be updated?
Absolutely. We can give you a brief update at your August 15th meeting about
where we are.
What are the concerns, or would you rather hold those off for now? Are the
concerns within the framework of what has typically been our appropriate policy
or are the concerns suggesting that somehow some way we are doing something
different in our approach?
It actually may be both to be quite honest. From conversations we’ve had to date
and we’ve had two meetings. I think because there is a recommendation in the
plan for some specific numbers, some caps of certain types of development,
particularly retail, that there is a concern that we are differentiating this area from
the remainder of the study area, and we are. The majority of the vacant land is
actually within this area. We also feel that it is very important for us to again
clarify the intent of the language. I think there is a disagreement between what
the language of the Plan actually says. The reason we have gone to another level
of specificity is because we wanted to truly clarify what the intent of the
language was, which is generally in the issues on the amount of retail, the shear
amount of square footage of retail. We already have 420,000 square feet of retail
with the IKEA site plus some addition for the out parcels, so with the remainder
of the acreage, how much more additional retail would be permitted in this edge
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
area. I think that is the majority of our issues, and maybe one other, the size of
the retail boxes. Do you have another IKEA or do you have something a little
smaller than IKEA. Those are the major issues I believe.
If I could remind the Councilmembers that the framework that was approved by
the Council for the road and financing for the IKEA, a piece of the framework
was that the rest would be developed in accordance with the approved Plan. We
want to be sure that we have a clear understanding between the developer in that
case and that is the other thing that is sort of driving us to be clear in this case
because Council has said we have public investment in this, we are also
expecting you to be … to what is in the Plan.
We have rezoned the property.
A portion of the property.
As it relates to the southern portion of Edge Area A-1, we have approved a
framework with Crescent Properties that includes two critical elements. One is a
methodology to accelerate the weave construction and repayment schedule and a
synthetic TIF to allow a road network to be constructed to create a spine up
through the remaining undeveloped property, including the IKEA site.
Yes sir.
My perspective is that if we are in this that way in the sense that our public
investment by its very nature does not make this a traditional development
project. As a consequence, we did not anticipate in this process, that we simply
extend the retail coming from the University City Area and University Boulevard
and just collapse all that so it was a retail mixed use component with the primary
retail being the IKEA site and some collateral retail to support that with the
balance being office or some kind of distribution function that would compliment
the use. That is my recollection and I think for that development plan and for the
taxes to drive bringing IKEA to the site, we agreed to construct this road
network, but not simply to create a larger retail component. I think part of the
reason we got involved is to design development in a way that we think matches
where we are and what we are trying to do in this general area. I think the points
of having adequate buffer is critical because it is unique and it is a gateway site
coming into the University City Area and how we are going to make that
different and what it might look like for a traditional interchange development
that might have someday a large retail component sitting on all corners.
That is correct.
From my perspective, you are doing the right thing and we need to hold fast to
that standard, otherwise, there is no reason for us to participate.
Is that consistent with what you see forthcoming?
I think so from what I understand, I think what staff is saying and what I
understand, what the developer is asking is we want an expanded retail
component within that site and the constraints that are going to be placed on it by
the plan language because the framework says the plan drives the development,
are different from what the developer wants. My recollection again is that what
we were told in this room is different than what is being asked for in capacity to
build retail on the site. I’m not a big fan of that. It is kind of like the reason that
we participated in Midtown Metropolitan was to design it in a way that fit what
we wanted to have happen in that particular parcel and you could have just
simply create a giant retail parcel there, but instead it has limited retail on that
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 6
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Campbell:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
NOTE:
site and that is why we invested in it to create other kinds of value and a mix of
uses that is a better relationship long-term to the surrounding properties. The fact
that staff is asking us to let this process play out and to see if they can arrive at a
point of satisfaction relative to what the plan says against what the anticipated
uses are going to be, it may come back to us with everybody cool and then they
are ready to proceed and we are ready to proceed with an adoption of a final
MOU that structures the repayment schedules and proceed forward with the road
construction.
Given all of that, is September too tight for you guys?
No, we want to get this resolved.
You are exactly correct in how you stated it, and there will likely be after
adoption … and then maybe even design standards of a greater definition and
description in the development agreement comes back to Council for approval.
The plan is the first step in getting the final development because a plan is a plan
but they can get more specific in the development agreement.
We want to keep current so if there is additional information that comes back to
us on the 14th, we ought to know about it.
University City Area Plan item was deferred by Committee to September.
Staff will meet with property owners to resolve issues related to the Plan.
They will also invite the Council district representative to the meeting.
II. Subject:
Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback Study.
John Lassiter, Chair: There was a memo to Council about a week ago referring this to us from the
City Manager directly in order to respond to some urgency about the development pattern along
Independence Boulevard.
Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager: This is simply a presentation to you and this may take two or
three meetings. Staff has been working on this for about a year. We want to present to you some
of the market data that has come out of this study. Eventually we need to talk about where we go
from this first phase. Right now on Independence Boulevard there is a huge transitional setback
from the center line of that road, 175 feet on both sides of the road. Obviously, that presents
some challenges for people who want to redevelop along Independence Boulevard. Staff is going
to present to you the findings of the study including some of the challenges and market data and
then discuss possible next steps. This is your first bite at this, but there will to be multiple
chances to look at this. Ms. Kinsey and Ms. Carter have already heard this because they wanted
to make sure they were seeing what is going on. Ms. Kinsey would be here today, but she is out
of town. Because this is partially in her District she wants to make sure that she comes to future
meetings and keeps pace with economic development planning in the Independence Business
Corridor.
Staff presenting at today’s meeting: Gail Whitcomb, Economic Development Office, Garet
Johnson, Planning, Danny Rogers, CATS, Norm Steinman, CDOT.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Lochman:
Am I right in assuming that we put a hurt on the businesses along the corridor
based upon the development?
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Carter:
Lochman:
Carter:
Kimble:
Carter:
What you are going to see is that because of the roadway impact and the general
nature of market conditions from being over retailed in this area a lot of what you
see is a combination of businesses going out because of the roadway
improvements but also because of the market. It is just not there today as it used
to be. What we are leaving you with at the end of this is that there could be a
whole new thinking of what the future of Independence Boulevard is; how it
orients itself either to Independence or starts to orient itself to streets that parallel
Independence. You are going to have a different roadway in the future than you
have now. It is going to take some time to work through and it is going to put in
place a change in thinking on the City’s part on how to redevelop Independence
over time.
I’m just curious. I don’t know, but if in fact the process we come up with leaves
the circumstance for other businesses to go out of business, does government do
anything for those businesses or is it just something that is considered a by
product or necessary development?
I think most often what you are seeing is a metamorphosis taking place because
of the market conditions. I think the City doesn’t necessarily step in with
specific assistance to those businesses, though during the roadway construction
we need to be in a much better position to talk about how people can get into and
out of existing businesses so they can continue on during the construction period.
I think what you are going to find is the market data that has been assembled here
that there is an excess of retail in this area.
It seems to me, and this is just an observation, that there are businesses that you
couldn’t get to if you wanted to for some period of time with construction. I’m
not asking to throw government money around, but if government does
something that causes businesses to go out of business do we typically do
anything?
One hundred-twenty three businesses went out of business along that corridor.
Some percentage for the reason I said and some percentage for the reason that
Mr. Kimble said.
But, when you look at the South Corridor and the construction that is happening
along there compared to the construction that happened on Independence, there
was a different manner in which it was handled, which was business sympathetic
and interactive along the South Corridor versus how NC-DOT handled
Independence. You have the levels of assistance which is visceral in difference
and we should be pressing NC-DOT to be responsive to our citizens. It is
crucial, and it is unforgivable to accomplish what they did.
NC-DOT is not used to doing roadway projects in urban settings. This is not
something that they are necessarily experienced and skilled at and the businesses
were the ones that were impacted with that first evolution. There is going to be a
second extended project on Independence Boulevard and our job should be to
work closely with NC-DOT to allow access to those businesses in a way that is
understood by the public.
I don’t think it was our fault that these businesses went out. I think our C-DOT
and our economic development people were out there making every attempt to
assist our citizens. I think it was the unresponsiveness of NC-DOT that resulted
in what was accomplished. In other words the demise of viable industry and
business retail. I am not sure we can accomplish it from our internal focus. We
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 8
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Dulin:
Carter:
Dulin:
Carter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Carter:
Dulin:
Carter:
have to have assistance I think from Raleigh, from our delegation, to push on
NC-DOT. And hopefully we get that NC-DOT regional office moved to
Charlotte where the pressure can be brought to bear appropriately and where they
can understand the situation. I think this is a long-term effort on our part.
There are multiple goals. This study looks at a little bit longer stretch of
Independence, even the part that has already been done in terms of how the
traditional setback might affect future development patterns. It also looks at that
section that is next to be reconstructed and then even further out from that.
Who are the NC-DOT State Reps for Independence from the Coliseum Inn out?
Becky Carney is one, very experienced, Tricia Cotham, Robert Pittenger curves
around the edge and Dan Clodfelter in the interior.
Where have they been for ten years?
They have been vocal, but NC-DOT is the …
It is a combination of roadway construction and market forces colliding.
There were payments made to the land owners in compensation for their losses.
For right-of-way.
I am not sure how those were done. Businesses that have generally gone out
were on Independence as tenants and had no ownership. The underlying land
owners have lost revenue, but in many cases they have been compensated in part
for the value of that right-of-way which has a component based upon the use of
the property. You are correct, we have been more sensitive about that as we have
built along South Boulevard and have been exposed to different kinds of
condemnation and exposed to more types of payment levels because of the way
in which that rail line is being built. Some of them got large sums of money that
were based upon something other than the value of the underlying dirt and they
retained the value of the remaining parcels which then can be redeveloped. It is a
challenge as you redevelop; how do you do it, and what do you do going forward
to avoid creating similar problems.
To put it in context, what I think I am hearing is that the owners of the land and
buildings got some money because of the railway but the businesses that were
paying them rent ran into cash flow problems. Context wise, we are spending
money for businesses in other corridors around the city hoping to attract start-up
businesses. Here we have existing businesses that seems to me is not appropriate
place for government to try to do something.
Again, everybody knows it is not necessarily the value of the square footage of
land taken in the right-of-way calculations. It is the “before the taking” valuation
of that property and how it can develop income less the “after the taking” of that
land and the value of the remaining property, and the difference becomes the
value for taking. That is what develops the payment for taking the right-of-way.
It is more than just the physicals footprint.
And we’re helping with the Wal-Mart although it is leaving Eastway. It is
moving forward.
We are not helping with that. We have no public funds in that.
We did some rezoning over there.
We did some rezoning, but we do that for everyone. The Wal-Mart didn’t move
… as I understand it there is a difficulty there, an environmental difficulty. There
is a brownfield because there is a dry cleaners there which has contaminated the
soil. Mr. Flynn, has that moved ahead at all?
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 9
______________________________________________________________________________________
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Whitcomb:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Johnson:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Rogers:
We are still working to facilitate a Brownfield Agreement through NCDENR.
Is there a way that we can assist their position through Raleigh because this is a
true example of where a business is economic development in this area.
Our staff is working with them and walking them through that process.
If you need some political support I would offer that.
It seems to be going well, but I will let you know if we need you.
Let’s see if I can get Gail into the slides.
Power Point Presentation begins
Ron mentioned that this was a joint study with economic development, planning,
CDOT and CATS, but it is also important to point out that this is a Phase I study.
We are just getting started and we knew going into this that there would be a
Phase II needed that would give us a more detailed analysis of the corridor. Ms.
Whitcomb used PowerPoint for her presentation.
There is a real aversion on the part of the neighborhoods that are oriented to
either Monroe Road, on the west or oriented to Central Avenue, Albemarle Road
and Idlewild Road and those neighbors on the east to anything that gets them
connected to Independence Boulevard. We talk about some different uses, but
have you thought about that thought process because it really is kind of a leap of
faith on the part of those communities to understand how we would do that, even
though you come up a little further on Independence and when you get to
Elizabeth there is a neighborhood and really those neighborhoods are right on the
roadway. The challenge to me is how do we do that in a way that gives buy-in so
that they are working with us to try to come up with some land plans.
I think two things – one that they may not necessarily be accessed to
Independence but may be accessed to the parcels that front Independence.
Access to what is ultimately a reconstructed grid that will allow you to reach
Independence. We went through this with Wal-Mart where the people on
Pierson Drive said we don’t want it. If you put a barricade up it doesn’t matter;
we don’t want anything. Yet they might actually find that beneficial if done the
right way.
There was no public input in this first phase. This really was about studying the
conditions out there now. In Phase II we will have public input and begin to
have that conversation with the neighborhoods.
Those access points would be the major intersections and the connections would
be to neighborhood services that would be so small that you might encourage the
cut-through traffic. If we do the plans, we have public buy-in and then how do
we implement these plans? That to me is one of the difficulties in the East side.
We have done plan after plan and then waiting to see the implementation is
always difficult and we have lost trust.
Continued the presentation with slides #5 on Page 3.
The setback is 175 feet from the edge of the right-of-way?
No, the center line of the road.
So your total width is of the roadway and then what is setback from the roadway
edge. And the roadway is how wide?
The roadway varies depending on where you are. Part of it is 4 lanes in each
direction and part has a bus-way in it That is for the part that is done out to
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 10
______________________________________________________________________________________
Steinman:
Lassiter:
Steinman:
Johnson:
Lassiter:
Johnson:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Johnson:
Johnson:
Kimble:
Rogers:
Rogers:
Albemarle Road.
The original purpose of the transitional setback is to allow for interchanges to be
built as well as potential frontage between the interchanges. The 350 feet total
are added to accommodate a freeway width.
If we are counting the line of a 100-foot buffer from the fence line of the right-ofway, that fence line is set off of the shoulder by probably 60 to 70 feet at a
minimum so I’m not saying right or wrong, but if in fact you treat this like a
freeway, are we creating an environment that has similar kind of feel or does it
have a very urban feel by its very nature.
The purpose of this transitional setback is different from the urban setback. The
purpose of this setback is to preserve the possibility of building all of
Independence Boulevard as a freeway. That is why this was created. It has
nothing directly to do with aesthetic reasons it is just the width and the level of
the interchanges that are created.
Continued her presentation with slides on Page 5.
You talked about what was taken in the redevelopment of the road with this
traditional setback, were buildings in that setback acquired, was there
compensation? Is it just a line that would prevent you from redevelopment if the
building were to burn down, you couldn’t rebuild, you couldn’t add on and all
those things, the kind of grandfathered kind of deal?
You have to meet the current requirements. If you have a site that is big enough
you could build the building back if it burned down. In terms of what NC-DOT
purchased, I am not sure.
Is this buildings like the Capri? I am thinking of things that are relatively close
to the edge of the road.
For example, J. N. Pease Building.
J. N. Pease is right up on it as well as IHOP. Those things are sitting up there
tight where the road has been built out and then, as you move up, the ones that
are out-parcels or the things that are sitting on the corner of Sharon Amity and
Independence where you’ve got a number of developed parcels all right there on
the corner.
One of the interesting things that we found by doing this analysis is that we felt
the impact would really be closer in town, but we are seeing impacts all the way
out to Sardis. Impacts related to parking, buildings in the setback, as well as
access issues. The impact on parking, for example: You are not allowed to have
required parking within the transitional setback. We actually see people who
don’t conform with the parking requirement. And some parcels have multiple
impacts such as parking’ a building in the setback and access all on the same
parcel.
Continued the presentation with slides on Page 7.
So if you get a percentage, 168 parcels of the 391 are affected by the transitional
set back and non-conforming.
In addition to the impacts already discussed, there are also access impacts related
to the roadway improvements..
Continued the presentation with slides on Page 8.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 11
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Rogers:
Rogers:
Lassiter:
Rogers:
Lassiter:
Rogers:
Kimble:
Whitcomb:
Carter:
Whitcomb:
Steinman:
I periodically am coming into town during drive time and periodically going out
of town during drive time along that corridor. My perception is that the traffic
build-up going in all occurs once you get to the improved roadway. Literally the
flow going through the intersections at Conference Drive and Sharon Amity
works relatively well, and then it all locks up when you get down the hill toward
Briar Creek Road and similarly the lock-up coming back tends to be in the big
bend when you are coming around by Elizabeth and once you clear the
improvements at Albemarle it kind of flows again. My sense is don’t improve
anymore.
There is a good explanation for that. When you come out of town 40% of the
traffic is going to Albemarle and 60% is going to Independence and you have the
same number of lanes on Independence. The 40% is going off Albemarle and the
60% still going on Independence still has the same number of lanes, but you are
then getting into the section where you have signalized intersections. When
those interchanges come that is going to flow really well. The problem is coming
back into town even though your improvements are there. At Albemarle Road
you’re adding 40% of traffic, plus we have a check point that we will never be
able to fix as we get to the Brookshire/Belk split. There is only so much traffic
that can go to Belk and unfortunately 60% of the traffic wants to go to Belk. It
also has a lot to do with widening the bus way and continuing to be a bus way.
We looked at the original plan which was to convert that to an HOV lane, but we
started looking at what that would do if you added another lane of HOV traffic
coming in. We can’t handle it now and to add another lane of traffic it was just
going to really break it down. That is the issue there, but when you get out to
Harris Boulevard then you are stopping again because of the intersections that are
slowing you down.
Continued the presentation with slides on Page 10.
Have you done an overall calculation of what percentage is affected? How much
of the total land is affected, percentage wise, not the parcels but the land mass, of
the 470 acres?
It is about 50%. 470 acres of the 950 acres are affected.
So 50% is affected by this traditional setback.
It is actually a little over 50% if you just go by parcel numbers.
It is 210 parcels out of 391 parcels, or 470 acres out of 950 acres.
Continued the presentation with slides on Page 11.
Could you explain to me about Independence orientation?
In some areas of Independence we need to begin looking at shifting orientation
away from Independence to the cross streets or the parallel streets such that it is
no longer oriented toward Independence Boulevard. It is actually shifting
orientation toward the other streets.
The photos in the slide represent this type of cross street orientation. This kind of
retail is dependent upon sidewalks, pedestrians and streets. Earlier in the
presentation we referred to Independence as a hybrid. That’s probably a more
positive statement than is actually is. It is an “in between” use. It can’t be a
pedestrian oriented street, and we have to create cross streets where those will be
the kind of streets where buildings can be fronted.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 12
______________________________________________________________________________________
Whitcomb:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Whitcomb:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Whitcomb:
Lassiter:
Continued the presentation with slides on Page 12.
This retail market demand is all of the east, not just Independence Boulevard? So
that 30% total retail space, a significant part of that is around Albemarle, Central
Avenue and the Eastland location, as opposed to Independence Boulevard.
Correct.
Does that go up as far as Cotswold?
Yes it would.
So you’ve got Cotswold and all its uses, everything east of that to the Laurel at
Albemarle Road? What is the percentage of retail sales as compared to the retail
space?
I don’t think we have that.
I’m going to guess that it is something less than 50% of the space so the sales are
probably 15% of the retail sales or less. It may be even less than that because so
much of it is vacant.
Continued the presentation with slides on Page 13.
The data I hear is that there is virtually no Class A space available in Charlotte.
The only new space coming on line is either brand new open space in Ballantyne
or property that is coming out over here in one of these holes and most of that is
already pre-leased.
A fair amount, yes.
Then it is your B space which is this market here, most of which is older and not
designed or an A use tenant because of its overall layout. To me the issue is what
do we know about the job generation and the potential for a job generation by
creating some amount of consolidated property. You’ve got a number of office
properties and, again, thinking more about the Eastland area where you’ve got
similar office properties that are sitting along Independence Boulevard that if
consolidated could be redeveloped in some way to market to a user that might
end up having to take some or all of the buildings down. Did they look at that?
They didn’t look at that specifically, but I think what they are saying is that if
you were to pursue such a strategy you would be going against the market to try
and bring either flex or office into this market. The amenities aren’t there.
So the office is going to be small business proprietors, insurance agencies, dentist
offices, eye doctors and those kinds of professionals and retail office services as
opposed to employment centers.
Given today’s market, if you could change the amenity package out there, if you
could make it a different place, if you could have enough land to make it a
different place, then you might be able to attract office users out there.
What size area would you need to create that opportunity?
I don’t know. I would say probably 10 to 15 acres because you want to have the
amenities to go with the office. It probably wouldn’t support deck parking.
Continued the presentation.
Several years ago on the Chamber’s inner city visit we went to Atlanta and saw
where BellSouth had relocated a fairly large operations and call center on top of a
new transit stop. The basic premise was that we couldn’t get the work force
where we needed them so we went ahead and built on top of that so we could be
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 13
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Whitcomb:
Carter:
Whitcomb:
Carter:
Whitcomb:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Whitcomb:
Lochman:
where the workers were. I wonder whether that is part of the thought process
here. You have a lot of potential employees, almost all of them are leaving the
immediate area to travel to center city, SouthPark and the University area for
employment, and whether or not there is some element of working through this
process to think about possible employers who can combine with some of this
other activity underway. It struck me as a bit of a win/win, especially if you’ve
got a way to subsidize or write down some of the values of the real estate,
making the real estate transactions simpler to generate employment opportunities
of its own, then that spurs other kinds of development because it creates a
housing opportunity, retail component, walkability and those kinds of things.
That is some of the things that are going on along the light rail line. It is
happening in some cases without our involvement.
Several of us were on that same trip and I think the difference there is, that rail
line was more closer to actually happening at a place where they placed that
building than we have been able to within Independence Boulevard. This would
have to be a longer-term vision to match it to the findings of whatever goes in.
Continued the presentation with the Residential Market on Page 14.
Does the rental figure take into account the rental units that are already there?
Yes, the consultant recognizes that there are a lot of older rental units that could
represent opportunities for redevelopment. A good example would be Idlewild,
Monroe Road and some of those older apartment rental complexes there.
What they would be doing is potentially replacing older units with new units?
Right.
Please make that firm as you discuss this issue.
Six-hundred units a year, assuming that they hold two people, that would be
1,200 people per year. We’ve got 30,000 people moving into the Charlotte area
annually through 2020. You are only getting of this quadrant 1/30 of the
investment in an area that is tough to go through all those other challenges. You
try to figure out why an investor would go here, other than price. What is the
incentive to create the investment when you’ve got a relatively small absorption
rate within this area and higher absorption rate, and still a higher price rate for
construction costs relative to the same land costs if you pick another part of the
community. You’ve got that many units coming up in three years at the Parks in
an area that is a very small portion southwest of the City.
I think that is why we talk about the amenities and greenways and those kinds of
things.
My sense is that this is almost … treatment, that with that absorption, the
consequence is new construction will in fact result in older construction further
decaying. Unless you can get someone to come and do dramatic knock down or
dramatic rehab.
Continued the presentation on Potential Redevelopment Zones on Page 15.
It seems to me, thinking in terms… (Comments lost in changing the tapes.) From
a residential point of view it is just too slippery a slope to climb. How do you set
about developing something that is real nice and well done, but not something
that is at a level that is incomparable with what you have, not only today, but
what you can expect to have for quite some period of time? I am trying to figure
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 14
______________________________________________________________________________________
Flynn;
Carter:
Lochman:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
out how to marry a market need with a circumstance, an upgraded circumstance
with reasonable expectation. Does that make any sense as opposed to trying to
make it something that it is just not going to become.
It is more of an incremental change that is designed to occur. It does make a lot
of sense because it will not ever become a … It is just not going to ever be there.
It will be something very different and we really have to play all the strengths
and some of the strengths are its diversity.
There still could be a market expansion as you look at Morningside and as you
look at Briar Creek. Development is moving out into that area and prices are sky
rocketing in some of those areas such as Chantilly. Those prices are no longer
affordable and the trend is up and I understand there is some more development
from the south that is heading to the southeast that is going to impact. I would
say that you cannot exclude a market improvement and I would surely say that
we don’t need dumping in this area.
There is obviously niches in that broader area where things can happen, but it is
not going to be along …
I think you will be surprised. All you have to do is drive along Independence and
look up to see the condomenia that has been built that is right there at the fringes
of Independence in Elizabeth and that is moving out significantly. People cannot
afford – I have been talking to young professionals who cannot afford to buy into
Merry Oaks. The same thing is now attracting with Oakhurst which is that next
ring out. It is moving faster than people are anticipating. I would love to invite
you out to see some of that. We still have our problems, but I don’t want to see us
down grading our potential.
I think the thing about creating amenities is you want to create them in the next
step up and we don’t want to reach too far when the market is going to determine
that, but keep that in mind where you are trying to build to with a vision.
But you also don’t want to reach too low. I am adamant about that.
We understand that. The market as you said is driving that today. The next big
thing, and I don’t know whether you saw it in today’s Observer, but here is top
end, high quality building coming into Briar Creek.
Clearly there are market forces that are emanating quality proximity to inner city
and those go to a point of access and then the question is whether access in travel
time are going to make it work as you get to other roadblocks. There is a point at
which there is not a good solution to figure out currently how to resolve those
issues and the redevelopment capacity of certain properties is much more
complex than pretty high quality single family construction or vacant land. The
question is going to be how do you develop strategies taking all the variables into
account.
Layered into that is the Council’s policy statement about business corridor
revitalization funding and are there a couple target areas that potentially match
that. For instance where there might be some abandoned hotels that maybe
represent opportunities where some business corridor revitalization funding can
be leveraged against quality development at opportune locations. And then in
addition what is going to happen long-term with Eastland Mall and where is
Glimcher on their sale of that particular property and how that impacts the
perception of change. I think there may be some opportunities that crop up
where business corridor funding may need to be talked about, but it has to be in
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 15
______________________________________________________________________________________
Carter:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Johnson:
Dulin:
Johnson:
Dulin:
Johnson:
Dulin:
Flynn:
Carter:
Lochman:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Johnson:
conjunction with the land use vision that starts to incent change.
I think it is absolutely crucial that we move ahead with this study and I would say
as fast as possible. With delay there is further decay and it is harder to recover.
That second phase study is going to be much more involved and expensive and
involve the community to a much greater extent than just this first cut at it. We
are talking some significant dollars for the Phase II Study. That is the purpose to
start this dialogue with you and have the Economic Development Planning
Committee help frame this for an ultimate visit to City Council.
I would also say this … in staff time and we talked about it earlier when we
talked about reconnecting these neighborhoods and having some lively
discussion among you. We wanted to make sure that the Council said yes to the
thought process and how we are going to go forward on that before we stepped
out to do that.
How much did Phase I cost?
Phase I was about $80,000.
And Phase II?
Phase II, we have not scoped out, but just from a look at what it will include, we
think it will be in the range of $250,000 to $500,000. It will probably be an 18
month to a 24 month process. That is why we have outlined short-term, midterm, and long-term steps so you don’t feel like you are studying for 2 years
without doing something in the meantime.
Where is the money coming from?
We have not identified a funding source and we are trying to figure that out.
For that kind of money should we bid this out to consultants?
Answer was not audible.
To put it in the context of funding, what would you expect as a return on this
investment for the second phase? What would our tax returns be on what could
potentially be developed from this study? I think that is something we need to
look at as well.
I don’t think there is anything developed from the study. A study is a study. It is
whatever the market circumstance evolves out of whatever is done in a study. To
get the return you have to figure out how much federal money has to be spent to
bring that about.
Comments inaudible.
The next slide you talk about corridor wide versus station area specific. Much of
what we have talked about here today has been eastside wide rather than corridor
wide or station areas. From my standpoint it is real hard to separate issues along
Independence Boulevard with the issues along Albemarle Road and Central
Avenue because of the issues you are wrestling with are somewhat universal. It
deals with the overbuilt retail situation, it deals with the declining value and
desirability of some of the residential components, it deals with an office product
that is not valued at the market place. All those things are not just Independence
Boulevard issues. What I’m trying to get to is the suggestion for a study going to
try to narrow or tailor up against the Independence Boulevard issues or are we
trying to tack on a much larger issue?
I think from a study perspective we certainly have to look at the larger market
area and the return on that. The transportation and land use strategies are
formulated with that larger market in mind and how they react to that. I think
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 16
______________________________________________________________________________________
Campbell:
Johnson:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Lassiter:
what we are proposing here is more Independence and talking about specific
detail in terms of specific land uses for parcels, how they orient, etc. We need to
have a parallel street network to Independence and parts of the corridor, what
type of street grid do you need, will we be able to get rid of the transitional
setback on Independence, so I think there are a lot of issues that are specific to
Independence. Our intent was to really look at the vision for Independence.
I think you mentioned corridor wide, but the study area would be greater than
just parcels that are butted up to Independence.
Right. The actual study area shows you would begin to tap into Monroe Road
although we talked about extending it over a wider area than that, but covering
the eastside specifically.
I am not talking about trying to do the entire East Area Plan, what I am saying,
on the first slide it shows the corridors and centers and the corridor is pretty wide
and then you’ve got centers that are connected to that. They are not necessarily a
corridor, but close enough to have a great deal to do with what you do in that
area. We’ve got a study done by ULI on the Eastland site and to me if you are
going to go by this process, you’ve got to figure out what you know on Eastland,
what are the other affected road networks and uses and then what are the issues
with Independence and then try to block that off in a way that it is a definable
area. Trying to do anything less than that is going to leave a lot on the table. You
have difficulty getting your neighborhood engagement because they can’t
separate it because they are all related issues.
You are absolutely right. It would be very irresponsible for us to think that we
could study a retail strategy for Independence and not consider the impact that
Eastland Mall is going to have and its revitalization. Literally, the character of
Independence is actually physically related to the character of the surrounding
area. That is why we are looking at this generally corridor wide versus just the
properties that abutt Independence.
There is another point to make when you look at this map. If you divide the City
along the south and northeast corridors, there is something of the remaining half
of the City when you look to your right. That is served by one major corridor
and one major center. So potentially as you look at the development for the
remaining part of Mecklenburg County, where is the service, where is the transit,
where is the mobility? With the water and sewer just to the north as it comes in
and as we annex there is going to be even more of a major concentration. We
have two hospitals now located in that area and it is going to develop. It is going
to be a strong area and we have to build for that future the potential as well as
address what is currently there. Right now, today, I am more optimistic about the
future of this area than I have been for some time. I have had some recent
conversations with people who are very interested in the area and I know that is
an emotional swing point, but there is investment that is occurring and there is
interest that has not been before. Let’s not loose sight of the potential as we
discuss this.
Nobody is denying the potential. As we are doing this, the intent is to identify it.
Again what we are talking about is a much smaller subset of the area you
described. There are many issues about redevelopment as you get further out
Albemarle Road. There aren’t many issues once you are inside Eastway going
toward town. Those are going to solve themselves. There aren’t many issues
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 1, 2007
Page 17
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
II.
once you get to Monroe Road west, and those things are all working beautifully.
You’ve got a spot in the center that has got some real challenges and there is not
a lot investment coming in to figure that out. There are a lot of land owners who
are trying to get out from underneath what they own and not much new money
coming in to solve problems. That is why I think you’ve got to figure that out
because it is some potential not … crossed for the community if we don’t get our
arms around it. We certainly don’t want to have any further erosion in the
relative evaluation of that property or any further stress on public services, based
on the inability of folks in that community to provide for themselves or to operate
in a simple manner. There are a whole bunch of reasons why we do it and the
challenge is if we can define it enough so that we can objectively come up with
something that can serve as a work plan so that you stimulate the right kind of
private and public investment that creates an uplift.
One of the biggest contributing factors has been about the makeover of
Independence Boulevard as a roadway. Look how long it has taken just to do
several miles of it and there is still uncertainty about when the rest of it is going
to get done.
We are not going to decide today about a plan, but I think we are going to next
talk more specifically about what a Phase II study would look like and what
building projects we might focus on.
I think we need to have your knowledge in deciding what you want to have in the
package and send to City Council a recommendation. We need a couple more
meetings to try and work through that.
We probably will cover a lot of the thought process, emotions and concerns and
if we could take some time to get that worked out and get some staff
recommendation about what is doable, what does the Phase II study look like,
what are the expectations and deliverables. That would be a good discussion.
This is good solid ground work and now it is just a question of how do we take
that and roll that into next steps. This is a problem we have been dealing with for
a long time and the opportunity may be here to begin the next phase.
Subject:
Next Meeting
The next meeting date is scheduled for August 15, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
Andy Dulin, Vice Chair
Don Lochman
Nancy Carter
James Mitchell
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble
AGENDA
I.
UNIVERSITY CITY AREA PLAN– 30 minutes
Staff: Kathy Cornett, Planning Coordinator
Action: Recommend adoption of the draft University City Area Plan Volume I: The Concept
Plan with recommended changes and receive Volume II: The Implementation Plan. Attachment
II.
INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD TRANSITIONAL SETBACK STUDY (Referred by
City Manager on July 25, 2007) – 45 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director; Gail Whitcomb, Business Development
Representative; Garet Johnson, Land Use Program Manager; Norm Steinman, Division
Manager for Planning & Design and Danny Rogers, Transit Program Manager
Action: Receive and comment on presentation/report from staff on this topic. Raise questions
for staff to address prior to making a recommendation at a subsequent meeting. Attachment
III.
NEXT MEETING DATE: August 15, 2007 at 3:00pm, Room 280
Possible Topics:
Building Permit/Plan Review Process (3:00-4:00pm)
Belmont Retail (4:00-4:30pm)
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
University City Area Plan
Economic Development and Planning Committee Meeting
August 1, 2007
Action Requested
Recommend adoption of the draft University City Area Plan Volume I: The Concept Plan
with recommended changes and receive Volume II: The Implementation Plan as
information.
Recommended Changes
• The Planning Committee unanimously recommended approval of the plan (6-0),
with one change to the recommended future land use in the southern portion of
Edge Area “A” from office/retail/industrial-warehouse to residential/office/retail.
• Staff recommends changing the bullet for the I-85 Frontage Area (Area A) on
page 35 of the Concept Plan from,
o “Where feasible, a 100-foot buffer should be encouraged along I-85 for
properties developing along the interstate” to
o “Development along I-85 shall provide a 100-foot undisturbed buffer from
the interstate.”
Staff also recommends adding this same language under Figure 8 on page 39 of
the Streetscape Development Standards.
• Staff recommends clarifying the language under the land use recommendation for
the I-85/City Boulevard Interchange Area on page 35 to address confusion about
where large scale retail and/or office use are appropriate. Edge Area A would be
divided into three “sub-areas” and the following text would replace the first three
bullets under Land Use Recommendations on page 35 of the draft plan;
o Area A-1. Because of its high visibility along I-85 and proposed new
points of access via City Boulevard and the McCullough Drive extension,
this area is appropriate for “interchange-oriented” retail uses and/or office
and residential uses. This includes the ~420,000 square feet of retail
approved for the IKEA and its outparcels and up to a maximum of
225,000 square feet of additional retail. The maximum ground floor
square footage of a single retail use (of this 225,000 square foot additional
retail) is 90,000 square feet. Site design should help to create a transition
to the pedestrian-friendly environments of the nearby transit stations.
o Area A-2. This area is appropriate for a mix of pedestrian-oriented uses
including office, retail and moderate density (up to 17 dua) residential uses
with a maximum of 70,000 square feet devoted to retail uses with a
maximum of 35,000 square feet for a single retail use. Development
should be pedestrian-focused with buildings along the public sidewalk
system and parking to the rear.
o Area A-3. This area is appropriate for a mixture of office, residential and
mixed-retail uses. The existing shopping center (University Place II) is
suburban in scale and form. Over time, the area should redevelop or be
redesigned to allow for a more intense mix of retail, office and moderate
intensity housing (up to 17 dua) that is more integrated and creates a “park
once” environment.
•
Citizen requested map clarifications.
Next Steps
ƒ August 1st – ED&P makes a recommendation to City Council
ƒ August 27th – City Council action
UNIVERSITY CITY AREA PLAN-EDGE AREA A-1, A-2, & A-3
The Shoppes at
University Place
Edge Area A-3
rch
M
u
Ch
cC
ull
ou
gh
I-8
5
eek
Cr
Clay
.
Edge Area A-1
rd
lla
Ma
JW
n
ryo
T
.
N
lvd
B
rris
Ha
Edge Area A-2
University of North
Carolina
at Charlotte
University City Blvd.
cky River
Ro
Carolinas Medical
Center
Edge Area A
LEGEND
Edge Area A
Transit Supportive
Development-Residential
Residential/Office/Retail
Proposed Streets
Transit Supportive
Development-Mixed
Residential <=17 DUA
Parks/Open Space/Greenway
Office/Retail/IndustrialWarehouse-District
Residential<= 5 DUA
MSD Boundary
Proposed Station Location
Existing Streets
0’
350’
700’
1400’
July 27th, 2007
Institutional
Utility
Edge Area A-1
Because of its high visibility along I-85 and proposed new
points of access via City Boulevard and the McCullough
Drive extension, this area is appropriate for “interchangeoriented” retail uses and/or office and residential uses. This
5.
I-8
includes the ~420,000 square feet of retail approved for the
City
IKEA and its outparcels and up to a maximum of 225,000
Bou
square feet of additional retail. The maximum ground floor
leva
rd
square footage of a single retail use (of this 225,000 square
n
ryo
N. T
foot additional retail) is 90,000 square feet. Site design
should help to create a transition to the pedestrian-friendly
environments of the nearby transit stations.
Edge Area A-2
This area is appropriate for a mix of pedestrian-oriented
uses including office, retail and moderate density (up to 17
dua) residential uses with a maximum of 70,000 square feet
I-8
5.
devoted to retail uses with a maximum of 35,000 square feet
for a single retail use. Development should be pedestrianfocused with buildings along the public sidewalk system
N.
Tr
y
on
and parking to the rear.
Edge Area A-3
This area is appropriate for a mixture of office, residential
and mixed-retail uses. The existing shopping center (University Place II) is suburban in scale and form. Over time,
5.
the area should redevelop or be redesigned to allow for a
I-8
more intense mix of retail, office and moderate intensity
rris
Ha
housing (up to 17 dua) that is more integrated and creates a
“park once” environment.
d.
Blv
n
ryo
.T
N
July 27th, 2007
Independence Boulevard
Land Use & Infrastructure Assessment
Phase 1
Economic Development & Planning Committee
August 1, 2007
Economic Development
Planning
CDOT
CATS
Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin
Robert Charles Lesser & Co.
The Littlejohn Group
Land Design
1
Phase 1 Study Goals
• Describe the impacts of the transitional setback (350’ r.o.w.
preserved on Independence for future freeway and service
road) on potential redevelopment along Independence
Boulevard
• Understand the market for retail, office, flex and housing
along Independence Boulevard and the Southeast Corridor
• Determine next steps to develop land use and
infrastructure strategies that will enhance redevelopment
potential of properties along the corridor and reduce the
negative impacts of roadway conversion
2
1
Phase 1 Study Findings
• Transitional setbacks are an issue, but the setbacks aren’t the
major issue holding back redevelopment on Independence
• Elimination of the setback is not recommended - the setback
could be needed for traffic safety and access
• Independence’s freeway-level traffic volume and hybrid design
will not allow it to function as it has in the past
• Redevelopment market is limited due to access from Independence
• Retail will need access to local markets and orientation to cross
streets
• Residential can expand from adjacent neighborhoods
• In Phase 2, more detailed transportation/land use analysis will be
used to define area and parcel specific recommendations on access
and setback requirements
3
Study
Context
4
2
5
rm
be
Al
le
ar
WT H
arris
Eastway
Br
iar
Cr
ee
k
Study Area
Total Land Area: 6,713 acres
.W
M
Single-Family (42%)
la
al
ce
Multi-Family (13%)
Office (6%)
Commercial (8%)
Industrial (7%)
No Data (19%)
Sa
rd
is
Institutional (6%)
6
3
Land Use & Development Regulation
Assessment
7
rm
be
Al
le
ar
Number of Parcels:
391
Total Land Area:
950 acres
WT H
arris
Eastway
Br
iar
Cr
ee
k
Parcels that touch the Transitional Setback or have access on
Independence Blvd.
.W
M
la
al
ce
Single-Family (11%)
Multi-Family (12%)
Office (16%)
Commercial (27%)
Industrial (21%)
No Data (14%)
Sa
rd
is
Institutional
8
4
Transitional Setback
• 350 feet total (175’ on each side from the center
line)
• Established in 1989 to preserve opportunities for
freeway and access roads if right in-right out
proves dangerous
• Impacts redevelopment through:
– Minimum lot size
– Building setback
– Parking setback
9
The transitional setback can put parcels out of conformance with
minimum lot sizes required for redevelopment.
32 parcels on 13 acres will not conform
to minimum lot size requirements
10
5
Buildings within the transitional setback are more difficult to redevelop.
Portion of Building in
Transitional Setback
Entire Building is outside of
Transitional Setback
122 parcels on 323 acres have existing buildings
in the transitional setback
11
For redevelopment, required parking must be outside of the
transitional setback
Existing
Implementation of
Transitional Setback
64 parcels on 139 acres will not conform to parking requirements
12
6
Eastway
Br
iar
Cr
ee
k
All Parcels with Potential Land Use and Dev’t. Regulation-related Effects
rm
be
Al
le
ar
Number of Parcels:
168
Total Land Area:
370 acres
Land Uses:
9 Single family
1 Multi-Family
16 Office
WT H
arris
77 Commercial
5 Hotel/Motel
37 Warehouse
23 Undefined
la
al
ce
Sa
rd
is
.W
M
13
Summary - Land Use and Regulatory Assessment
Number
of Parcels
Land Area
(Acre)
32
13
Parcels with existing buildings in TS
122
323
Parcels that will not conform to parking
requirements
64
139
168*
370*
Parcels that will not conform to minimum
lot size requirements
Total number of Parcels
potentially affected
*Some parcels have more than
one type of regulatory impact
Total number of Parcels
along Independence Blvd
391
950
14
7
Access
Assessment
15
Independence Roadway Construction
(not including transit)
• Has been completed to Sharon Amity
• Sharon Amity through Conference Drive to be
started by 2010 and completed by 2013.
– Cost estimate: $150,000,000
• Conference Drive through Sardis unscheduled and
unprogrammed.
– Cost estimate: $170,000,000
16
8
rm
be
Al
le
ar
Number of Parcels:
183
Total Land Area:
259 acres
WT H
arris
Eastway
Br
iar
Cr
ee
k
After Interchange Construction - Access only from Independence
la
al
ce
Sa
rd
is
.W
M
17
Number of Parcels:
105
Total Land Area:
536 acres
.W
M
Sa
rd
is
rm
be
Al
le
ar
WT H
arris
Eastway
Br
iar
Cr
ee
k
After Interchange Construction - Access from Independence and other
streets
la
al
ce
18
9
Summary - Access Assessment
Before Interchange
Construction
After Interchange
Construction
Access
Level
Number
of Parcels
Land Area
(Acre)
Number
of Parcels
Land Area
(Acre)
Only from
Independence
204
488
183
259
From Independence
and other Streets
101
338
105
536
Access only from
Other Streets
86
123
Parcels used for Interchange construction
Total along Independence
61
124
42
31
391
950
19
Eastway
Br
iar
Cr
ee
k
Parcels with Potential Regulation-related or Access Effects
le
ar
210
Total Land Area:
470 acres
WT H
arris
Al
rm
be
Number of Parcels:
.W
M
la
al
ce
Parcels with Land Use & Regulation-related Effects
Parcels with Access only from Independence
(after interchange construction)
20
10
Economic & Market
Assessment
21
RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW
HIGH TRAFFIC COUNTS & GREAT VISIBILITY OF SITES ARE RETAIL
STRENGTHS; CONNECTIONS TO DEMAND SOURCES A CHALLENGE
STRENGTHS
High traffic counts & visibility
Good regional access
Large population base to draw from
• Population greater than 100,000 within 5mile radius of at various points within
corridor
CHALLENGES
Dated centers—many obsolete--competing
with newer centers with national anchors
Lack of great intersections in corridor
Independence a poor orientation and
neighborhoods are disconnected
• Major factor for neighborhood-based retail
Uncertainty associated with construction on
Independence Boulevard
• Significantly stifles investment
22
RCLCo P-number
11
DATED SHOPPING CENTERS ARE LOSING MAJOR ANCHOR TENANTS
AND ON THE WAY TO OBSOLESCENCE
Total SF
Year Built
Amity Gardens Shopping Center
269,000
1958
Chantilly Shopping Center
52,000
1955
Coliseum Shopping Center
220,000
1964
Idlewild Plaza
48,400
N/A
Independence Shopping Center
214,565
1971
Lanier Plaza
40,932
1965
Triangle Mart Center
120,188
1973
TOTAL
965,085
Harris Teeter, Sports Exchange and Circuit City are among the
tenants that have vacated these shopping centers
SOURCE: Co-Star Shopping Center Guide
RCLCo P-number
23
RETAIL MARKET DEMAND
Though large, the submarket underperforms the overall
market in key metrics
Vacancy: 9.1% vs. 6.9% for Charlotte
Rent: $15.80 psf vs. $20.91 psf for Charlotte
The East submarket accounts for 30% of total retail space in
Charlotte; in the 4th quarter the submarket experienced a net
absorption of -39,644 sf vs. the market total of 290,841sf
RETAIL MARKET POTENTIAL
RCLCO projects:
Regional Shopping (Eastside)
Neighborhood
24
649,919 sf
185,000 sf
RCLCo P-number
12
OFFICE AND FLEX MARKET OVERVIEW
STRENGTHS
Good regional access to potential
employees and businesses
• Stronger closer-in
Good proximity to existing office cores
CHALLENGES
Not proximate to executive housing core
Lacks the level/quality of services and retail
desired by office/flex tenants
Small office submarket that is not
traditionally viewed as desirable location for
office
Land prices and achievable rents in
submarket make delivery of flex space
difficult
Few “anchors” to act as focal points for
development
25
RCLCo P-number
OFFICE AND FLEX MARKET DEMAND
OFFICE MARKET
Crownpoint/Matthews and East Submarkets performing
significantly below market averages.
RCLCO projects 10,400 sf to 25,900 sf annually
through 2011
FLEXMARKET
Despite flex submarkets good vacancies and asking rents,
Independence has a dwindling share of this small market
RCLCO projects 16,200 sf to 27,600 sf annually
through 2011
26
RCLCo P-number
13
RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW
STRENGTHS
Good access to employment cores
Some more stable neighborhoods abut
portions of corridor
Numerous creeks cross or parallel corridor
• Opportunity for stronger orientation
CHALLENGES
A number of neighborhoods in the corridor
are becoming increasingly unstable
Lack of investment limits incentives for new
product
Lack of parks, greenways in place
Deferred maintenance and retail struggles
impacting perceived residential quality
27
RCLCo P-number
RESIDENTIAL MARKET DEMAND
RENTAL
Demand exists for new, more modern rental apartment
product within the corridor
RCLCO projects the submarket can absorb 374 units
annually through 2011.
FOR-SALE
The corridor’s character lends itself well to the development
of for sale attached product types
RCLCO projects the submarket has the demand
potential for 236 for-sale townhouses and
condominiums annually through 2011
28
RCLCo P-number
14
THREE POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT ZONES
Intown Infill
Significant portion of Independence
Boulevard caught in a tough zone
Expensive, but
premiums justify
Aging Suburban
• Cheaper greenfield opportunities
Lack of character and
more expensive
exist elsewhere
• Redevelopment is more expensive
• But value doesn’t exist to justify
significantly higher rents and prices
Briar Creek Node
Need to create value
Idlewild Node
• Independence shouldn’t be the
orientation
Sardis Node
• Create focal points at key
intersections
• Connectivity between Independence
Greenfield Development
and surrounding neighborhoods
offers the greatest opportunity for
revitalizing these nodes and overall
corridor
Inexpensive
RCLCo P-number
29
Things to
Consider
30
15
• Development along Independence is constrained by the market
and roadway design. Transit alone will not change the market .
• Be smart with our limited market potential
• Focus on the cross streets and parallel streets
• Be strategic and deliberate, working together to determine the inbetween spaces.
• Build on Existing Strengths
• Focus on stabilizing existing neighborhoods and converting
declining commercial areas into residential
• Higher end rentals in conjunction with new development can
be a catalyst. People more willing to take a risk by renting first
• Target retail to neighborhood & residential opportunities
• Connect existing neighborhoods to new neighborhood services
• Develop new transportation and land use vision for
Independence. Uncertainty of State road funds is holding the
corridor back.
• Create new city infrastructure and land conversion plan.
• Pursue an accelerated schedule for highway/transit
improvements.
31
Next
STEPS
32
16
Define short, mid and long term
implementation steps
• Short term
– Fund a Phase Two Study (cost estimate $250-500,000)
– Assist projects that respond to the Phase 1 findings
• Mid term (completion of Phase Two)
– Implement modifications to transitional setbacks
– Refine City’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and
MUMPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan
– Amend adopted land use maps
• Long term
– Create new access and street network
33
Short term
Fund a Phase 2 Study that:
•
Develops a new Vision, Land Use and Transportation Plan
incorporating concepts from Phase 1
•
Corridor wide rather than station area specific
Identifies desired land uses, road design enhancements
and implementation strategies
Identify key land use changes
Identify key transportation changes/ investments with order
of magnitude costs
Identify key urban design changes
Identify key economic development and implementation
strategies and provide preliminary cost estimates
34
17
Short term
Assist projects that respond to the Phase 1
findings
• Work with developers on projects in the three primary
redevelopment nodes (focusing initially to Sharon
Amity where road construction is complete)
• Examine Independence sites highly impacted from a
regulatory and/or access perspective
35
ED&P Request
• Receive information
• Discuss next steps:
– Scope of Phase 2 work
– Consideration of possible short term
projects
36
18
Questions?
37
19